Complaint Investigation Report

Clients also noted that staff had access to the video recordings, but there was no indication that this access was used to exploit or misuse the footage, nor were any recordings shared inappropriately.

Licensee Jon Li (S2) provided an explanation during the interview, stating that the incident might have occurred because the former staff (S3), may have had the Ring app open on their phone. S2 explained that if S3's phone was open to the app, it could have unintentionally picked up a conversation inside the home, and those outside the facility could have overheard it through the Ring doorbell. S2 further clarified that the Ring doorbell system is designed to record only when it detects motion, and the primary function of the system is to allow communication with individuals at the door.

During an observation on July 25, 2025, LPA conducted a test of the Ring Doorbell system. LPA rang the doorbell at the front door, and S2 was able to communicate through the app, confirming that the system allowed two-way audio. While this confirmed that the device has the capacity to record and broadcast audio, the issue remains that the use of audio was not intentional or part of regular practice.

Additionally, there is not preponderance of evidence suggesting that the Licensee or staff have intentionally or regularly used the Ring doorbell for unauthorized surveillance or to record audio without proper notification or consent. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

A finding of unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened the preponderance of evidence does not prove it.

No deficiencies were cited as a result of this visit. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.